The U.S. and NATO Aren’t Going To War Over Ukraine

Speaking in Belgium on March 26, 2014, President Barack Obama made it clear that military force would not be used to deter further Russian aggression outside NATO territory. Whatever the rationale behind this baffling clarification, it only increases the risk that the alliance will be drawn into a military conflict with Moscow. NATO has had to fight outside its borders before, and it may be forced to do so again if Russia keeps seizing its neighbors’ territory — regardless whether or not those neighbors fall under the alliance’s collective security blanket.

The best way to drag NATO into a shooting war with Russia is to say that it will fight on behalf of a country that it is not obliged to defend. Most alliance members would rightly balk at the prospect of going to war for Ukraine, and in the end there would be no consensus in favor of backing up the commitment made by a handful of leading states. If most NATO members aren’t prepared to risk armed conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and they aren’t, it makes even less sense for the U.S. to threaten the use of force. Making such a statement would not deter Russia, which would dismiss it as meaningless, but it could easily split the alliance and leave the U.S. in the absurd position of risking a major international war for a non-ally. It would be insane to risk a major war over Ukraine, which is why no one would believe any statements from Washington that the U.S. is willing to risk this. The “baffling clarification” that Loyola finds so objectionable is a statement of the merely obvious, since everyone already assumes that the U.S. and its allies aren’t willing to go to war to defend a state that doesn’t belong to the alliance.

It’s true that NATO has fought “outside its borders” before, but on two of those occasions it was taking sides in an internal conflict against relatively weak governments. When alliance members fought in Afghanistan, it was officially as a response to the attacks on the U.S. So NATO isn’t going to fight a war with Russia over a non-member, and it is foolish to argue that any individual member of NATO should be willing to do this. Ruling out the use of force in Ukraine gives nothing away, since there was never any chance that the U.S. would resort to using force there.

Loyola makes the unusual and ridiculous argument that Ukraine shouldn’t be brought into NATO, but that NATO should defend it nonetheless:

NATO may have little reason to admit Ukraine as a member, but it has every reason to defend it now.

Doing that would be the worst of both worlds: pledging to defend a state that the alliance doesn’t really want to defend, but not extending the official security guarantee to it that would at least make that pledge seem remotely plausible. Agreeing to bring Ukraine into NATO would be foolish and would most likely make things worse with Russia, which is never going to permit Ukraine to join the alliance. Pledging to defend the country while it is still outside of the alliance would be even more reckless. If the defense of NATO isn’t limited to the borders of its members, there is no limit to what could be justified in “defense of its collective interests.”

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 10 comments

10 Responses to The U.S. and NATO Aren’t Going To War Over Ukraine

If the defense of NATO isn’t limited to the borders of its members, there is no limit to what could be justified in “defense of its collective interests.”

Feature, not a bug. Or rather, I’m pretty sure that’s the point of the whole “We’re All Ukrainians Now” brigade. Abolishing the putative limits on what can be justified in the name of collective self-defense is a major project of American hawkery. Getting the rest of NATO to provide the cannon fodder – I mean, diplomatic cover is just a means to the end of creating a patina of normative legitimacy.

Anyway, why not address diplomatic and economic sanctions more creatively? Such as, requiring all imports of goods, contracts for services, and transfers of money from Russia to the United States to be certified not to have originated in formerly Ukrainian territory. Since Russian oil and gas would not be affected, I could see our European allies being willing to follow us in such a step. Some of our Asian allies too. Mainly, this would create Crimea-related headaches for Russian oligarchs moving money into and out of New York and the City of London, which is sort of the best we can hope to achieve in the near term short of military confrontation. You can do business in Crimea and help Moscow tighten its control there, or you can do business in Western markets, but you have to choose between palling around with Putin or maintaining assets beyond Putin’s reach. That’s a real conundrum for a Russian oligarch!

“Russian generals and even Putin surely know that the F-22s could smash the far inferior Russian air force and then punish Russian armies invading eastern Ukraine or elsewhere in the region.”

Rumor has it that the new Top Gun movie will be an effort to reassert the role of fighter pilots in relation to drone warfare. If true, the movie will be very stimulating to people like Gelb.

But direct military engagement with Russia is insane. Even if we were to avoid an all out nuclear conflict, Russia would at the very least turn off all the oil pipelines, probably plunging the Europe and
the US into depression.

Novorossiya (Eastern Ukraine ) is and must remain in Russia’s sphere as a matter of European security and stability. It will never agree to American colonial rule from Kiev’s American-appointed oligarchic junta. In fact, the lads in “Right Sector’ are in for an unpleasant surprise when their American sponsors present the bill: austerity, gay marriage,open borders, etc. Might want to bite Washington’s feeding hand. At least the Russians are culturally akin and not strange decadents from across the seas allied with “native” Scientologists and other alien cultists!! Russia has tried repeatedly to work out a peaceable federal solution for Ukraine and America has repeatedly thwarted same, as it did in Bosnia in the early 90s directly leading to civil war. A war which twenty years later has resulted in a three way partition of the country anyway after many lives unnecessarily lost. In the name of peace, let Novorossiya go.

The main Euro NATO members would destroy their own economies in a war with Russia due to economic interconnections in the region. I just don’t see it happening. They don’t even want severe sanctions for that reason.

I agree with Leo H. I don’t trust the current Russian regime or Russia generally, but that doesn’t mean the US government should keep trying to humiliate and provoke and alarm Russia by fomenting revolution and riots in Russia’s backyard.

Let every single oblast (province) of Ukraine vote whether to remain in Ukraine or secede and become independent (or part of Russia). Maybe require a super-majority for secession, say 60% or 67% instead of 50.1%. Even with that requirement, several of the more populous, industrialized eastern / southeastern oblasty would likely vote to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Let them.

If the remaining Ukraine wishes to join the EU, that’s a foolish move but go ahead.

“Russian generals and even Putin surely know that the F-22s could smash the far inferior Russian air force and then punish Russian armies invading eastern Ukraine or elsewhere in the region.”

And what is the Mean Time Before Failure for F-22s under real combat conditions with real oppostion? In addition, the Russian Air Force would be operating behind interior lines and could chose it’s spots.

I’m convinced commentators like Loyola have never been happy with the way the Cold War ended. They wanted to win it the old-fashioned way, with a marine planting the American flag in the smoking rubble of the Kremlin and a bunch of Russians signing a humiliating peace treaty on the deck of the ‘Enterprise’. They’ll leap at any chance to make their dreams come alive again.